5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Argumentation begins in R2.

The purpose of this debate will be for me to attempt at demonstrating the ethical and logical consistency behind private property while my opponent's purpose will be to expose private property as either being unethical in itself or being an illogical or inconsistent concept.

Property will be defined as something to which one has complete control over inasmuch as they do not infringe on another's property.

For property to be private will mean that it is owned by a single person and not owned by a collective such as society or a government.

I would like to thank in advance LiberationMedia for areeing to this debate. I am excited to see an exchange of ideas between adherents to the collectivist and individualist schools of anarchist thougt. Good luck to my opponent.

I am extremely proud and honored to be able to have this debate with Tom_Spinelli. I look forward to a well though out debate and Private Property. I agree with all the rules/clarifications for the debate as well as agree with the definitions. I look forward to the opponent's contentions good luck.

In this debate, I will not attempt to argue that there are objective entities in the universe known as rights. Instead I will argue that private property is the most consistent and ethical propety theory in regards to other notable property theories. I will not in this debate argue what method of appropriating property is correct(homesteading, fencing) for that is a specific issue dealt with once private property has been justified.

What types of property are there though? In the general sense that my and my opponent are arguing about, property can be divided into two basic categories with a third option of property simply not existing. There is private property(previously defined) and collective property. Collective property is owned equally among everyone in a given territory, society, or the entire world. My argumentative process will be to disprove the ethics and consistency of both collective ownership and non-property ownership to show the merits of private property as a foundational theory.

Contention 1- Collective Ownership

Collective ownership runs into numerous practical and ethical problems. On the pracal side, it is not practical for a society to function where all property is owned collectively either through a commune or a government. The reason, if everyone owns an equal piece of everything, consensus is necessary for achievement of even the most rudimentary goals. Take for example one's body. Self ownership is justified through property rights. Ou body is our property, therefore no one may interfere aggressively or otherwise unjustly against it. Self ownership therefore necessitates private ownership.

But let's say everything is collectively owned. This necessitates that society as a collective owns your body or at least the great majority of it. Let's say that one decides to get out of bed. To do this in a world of collective property, he must first achieve consensus within the community. And to do this would require not only for him to communicate with the rest of society(using his body) but it would require members of society to verbalize either their support or opposition towards the man's request(thus forcing them to use their bodies which they do not fully own). In short, a socity of collective ownership runs into numeroud logical inconsistencies and contradictions.

Contention 2- Non-ownership

One could avoid the inconsistencies of collective ownership though while still not accepting private property. One could arge that ownership of property by either an individual or a colletive is never justified. Reasons for this conclusion are wide ranging. The more popular reason though is that whether it be an individual or a collective who owns a piece of property, ownership always leads to coercion or aggression. While this may seem an ethical conlusion at first, I will show it leads to even more logical inconsistencies than collective ownership.

The resoning that coercion is caused by either private or collective ownership is flawed in itself. In a non-owership society, coercion would still occur in that it would be impossible to defend property from being appropriated unjustly by others without necessarily exerting some sort of ownership on said property. If I don't think property is a moral concept and I see someone claiming some land, I cannot do anything about it anyways for two reasons, A. Stopping them from claiming the land implies ownership of the land an B. Doing anything at all would be using one's own body, implying ownership as well. Action is impossible in a society of non-ownership or collective ownership.

To conlude, private ownership runs into none of the contradictions and inconsistencies that collective and non-ownership run into. Any coercion that one can blame on private ownership can also be exponentially increased and applied to non-ownership. Also, ollective ownership is shown to already assume private ownership of one's body in that it assumes humans can act in any way from walking and talking to texting or driving. Non-ownership has also been shown to assume private ownership if one ever talks of defending the immorality of property ownership from a practical standpoint. Basically, private ownership is not only assumed in both of these alternatives, but they have also been shown to be completely impractical. This is enough for opening arguments, I now pass the debate to my opponent.